Scouter99

If that worked, then run with it, but I agreed with your initial conclusion that you haven't got any good option except to give it to him. The Guide to Advancement is clear that to deny him credit, you must have sat him down months ago, told him the problems, and given him a clear path to success. (This isn't an endorsement of the policy, it's simply how it is.) You say you're 4 months in; If you do a 6-month term, and if I were you, your meeting of 6/18 is your "intervention" and the next 2 months are his chance to make good or else not get credit come August.

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership. A/C, shag carpet, arcade halls, and TV didn't keep boys at home in 1965, we can't assume that's what keeps them home today. In fact, as Rush fans know all too well, it may be the case that suburban life actually pushes boys right into our arms (nerd time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4) because it denies their nature. But, perhaps the growth in membership had nothing to do with BSA's intrinsic qualities: historians of the US also know the 50s as a "culture of joining"--civic groups of all types, not just the BSA, saw their membership soar. So, we have a few reasons why there was so much growth: adventure, getting out of the home, getting out of the "mass production zone" suburbs, joining for joining's sake. Your point about patriotism doesn't much play, for me. Patriotism has never played a major role in my scouting experience as either a youth or adult. The fashion at this forum is to timestamp our modern problems 1972, tag them "Improved Scouting Program," and lay them all at the feet of national. And to be sure, drastically changing the program drastically changed what boys were getting, and they clearly didn't want the new menu. However, the program was corrected in 1979, but it hasn't stopped the bleeding. That's where we get to your best argument: Cultural change. There's no culture of joining, anymore, it's all about individualism. Mistrust of institutions is rampant. Mommy thinks Johnny will die if he's out of her sight. In the past, mom and dad wanted junior in the woods, out of the house, and to become a man as soon as possible, preferably before his first armpit hair; now they're scared to death to even consider that he will leave home by 30. There is also the proliferation of extra-curriculars. I didn't live it, so I will try not to overstate, but the after-school landscape was not as crowded in the past as it is today. Now, Johnny has a lot more options. Last, in terms of culture still, the baby boom is over. The decline coincided not just with Improved Scouting, but also with the aging-out of the boomers, and birth rates have continued to decline among BSA's core demographic (whitey). The answer, of course, is continued differentiation. The only traditional program that has seen membership growth between 1999 and 2012 is Venturing. Wow, BSA, what a surprise! The most freewheeling program is the only one that's growing. Yet BSA continues to dial back adventure and independence in Boy Scouting. The second thing is to keep reaching out to Spanish-speaking families; they have more kids than whitey, and they don't have the same access to other civic institutions.

BSA "lost" its left wing because the ACLU went on the offensive and removed scouting units from schools, military bases, housing projects, and any other public institution. Whine to them about the pigeonholed BSA. When you were a kid, BSA's national campaign was "Onward . . . For God and Country!" And, just as is true today, the depth to which that effected your personal experience depended upon how much attention your troop paid to that. You don't remember any of the adult politics because you were a kid.

My first rappeling trip was a real cliff. My knee buckled 5 feet down, I hit the rock hard, scrambled back up and I've never tried again. If I'm a priss, so be it, hahahaha. I remember the experience fondly, but it's not one I'm interested in having twice.

I think it depends on the troop's situation; our troop covers gear and other costs with monthly dues, so we don't do a lot of fundraising. The boys who sell popcorn or camp cards get the money in their ISA, and sometimes we sell burgers at a fair for the troop treasury. In years where we need a lot of money for a specific purchase (new trailer or new tents etc) we ask the PLC to determine a percentage of popcorn that will go to the troop, and the troop supports the sale to a greater extent. So, if we were constantly fundraising and the troop really put a lot of work into the sales, then I would support a more collective approach to distributing it. But the famlies in our troop have decided they'd rather pay out of pocket than beat the streets selling things, so we don't, and its perfectly moral that the boys who put in work selling get the money they earned.

Yeah, we're victims of our panache

Take a deep breath, innnnnnnnnn . . . . . . . oooouuuuut. Relative to my positive experience in my troop, some of the stories on this forum are so far out and negative that I sometimes wonder if they could be real. Hyperbole, it's a literary device. To answer your next question (extrapolating on your blown gasket), no, I don't actually believe I live in an episode of Leave it to Beaver.

Well, excuse me for having a question. They "might" do a lot of things, and I haven't said they don't, but what do you think the odds are that in 10 years every Webelos crossover to our troop had an individual Scoutmaster Conference with another troop he had no intention of joining, and never with us? I put it between zip-o and unlikely. Everyone else, thanks for your input/advice. I mainly wondered what the perspective is on those requirements. We generally only do one event for Webs, it looks like we can help those DLs be more honest if we offer more opportunities and a greater variety of opportunities.

Almost never. When I read some of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane, that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of exaggerations or lies going around here. Maybe we just have a very mature troop in terms of live-and-let-live. The troop used to award 5 or 6 God & Country awards every year through the mid-90s, but we've had several kids who don't hide their atheism, too. Our youth Chaplain's Aide prays at the end of every meeting without mentioning Jesus, but we have no adult Chaplain. The last Chaplain that we had was a Buddhist. We rarely do a service on weekend trips, but when we do we use that "Scout's Own" thing, which I find muddled and humorous. There are a couple Jewish families, and one is a mixed household with a Catholic parent and two sons; one son brings up Judaism almost every time I've ever had him in my car on the way to or from a trip always in a cynical tone about Christians (he's the exception to "almost never"), but the other son knows the Lord's Prayer better than any of the other kids. So, we have a religious element to our program, but it's not a topic of official conversation, and we don't bring it into Boards of Review.

I'm sure that the county officials who issued a permit to destroy habitat will get right on top of that.

That explanation doesn't seem to flush with BSA's direct service units in plenty of foreign countries.

Settle down. Once again: The camp applied for and received a permit to remove 48 trees that were damaged by a wildfire. The same county that cited the camp in 1989 also permitted the camp to cut a limited number of fire-damaged trees. That qualifies as "clear cutting" only in your hyperbolic emotionally-charged world. They didn't even cut all 48 down, they cut down 38. The majority were cut while the permit was valid, one was not. In terms of the fern, it doesn't matter whether the same tree was cut down in 2010 or 2008.

I dug deeper based on your result; found a couple of papers buried on page 8 of results. His only contributions to research papers are counting birds and other fieldwork, which isn't really anything. Relative, indeed. I'm simply saying the man may be a really knowledgeable person and gung-ho, but counting birds and butterflies doesn't make a person a "noted environmentalist." It makes a person a bird-counter. I've been an extra in movies, I'm not a "noted actor." Kuska is a hobbyist. I don't appreciate being misled when someone is asking me to "force change." Anyway, none of us has the full story, and I'd be in favor of him being reinstated.

What annoys me about these discussions is the erroneous use of "BSA." "Boy Scouts of America" didn't cut down trees and screw with the endangered fern, the Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council's two predecessor councils did. BSA didn't revoke this guy's membership, Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council did. The old growth trees they cut were cut with a permit, only "some" after it had expired (one in 2010 out of 38 total), and while they should not have done it, cutting them before or after the permit expired doesn't change the fact that the county had no problem with them being cut. So, too, the issue continues with the 2009 report: 1/3 of councils had conducted logging, not "BSA." But even when Hearst reports that "1/3" it must be noted that those 400 instances aren't equally distributed, some councils log regularly; 34 instances went to only one council (Portland). Properly managed, logging is not even a sustainability or environmental issue. As for revoking the guy's membership, we're given very little context, just his side of the story. But what little context we get makes it clear that he went off the reservation and made himself a problem by planting the ferns wherever he wanted rather than working with the camp/council. Working in the nature lodge 30 years ago and having a passion for the fern plus a member card doesn't give the guy the right to start planting an endangered species in the middle of camp. Let's think about this logically: You're in love with an endangered fern, you want to proliferate it so you collect its rare seeds, then you plan them ..... in front of the dining hall and health lodge? No. You plant them where they'll thrive. It's one thing to work on a problem, it's another thing to make yourself a nuisance. As for the petition, it calls Kuska a "noted environmentalist." Google him. Nada. He's a middle school science teacher and apparently a farmer with a 2013 arrest for trespassing who has a penchant for nature and birdwatching, not a noted environmentalist. The Council was wrong, and Kuska was wrong. In the end, Kuska should be reinstated, but with the understanding that he's to either stay away from the camp, or that the camp and Kuska will work together.

The LA Times hasn't got an axe to grind with the ASA.

If it wasn't made perfectly, crystal clear that they're loaners at the beginning of the year, lesson learned, and next year you'll make sure you do. If it was, as Schiff said, it's time for a call to the parents to the effect that you're very glad the boys had such a great time that they want to keep their neckerchiefs, but you need $7 to replace them.

Meh. He met the requirements for Life, he's going to meet the requirements for Eagle, he just took a break in between. Since your troop has no clear activity policy, he didn't do anything wrong. I wouldn't like it either, but it's better that he came back and wants to do it than that he never did.

I was looking at the Arrow of Light requirements for giggles just now, and I came up with a question regarding requirements 4 and 6, because as far as I can tell no Webelos that's joined our troop anytime lately has met them. Req 4 requires the boy to participate in a den visit to both and troop meeting and "Boy Scout-oriented outdoor activity." For years, we've invited Webelos to our sports center lock-in. Some years, we invite them to our summer beach trip, which is in a cabin. If it were me, I wouldn't fuss over the cabin trip, but a lock-in clearly isn't an outdoor activity. No Cub leader has ever indicated the issue to us. The meeting visit is accomplished with our open house. Req 6 requires a second, individually-oriented visit to a troop he "might like to join" by the Webelos and his parents, wherein he has a conference with the Scoutmaster. Not one Webelos has ever come back for a singular visit or had an individual conference with our Scoutmaster. Am I reading things wrong, or is the pack fudging those two requirements? I'm a little alarmed. How do your all's packs interpret/handle these requirements?

The issue here is the nature of the requirement: "a. Prepare a budget reflecting your expected income, expenses, and savings." That is forethought/forecasting/budgeting. The log then compares his budget (expectations) with reality--thus the two-part nature of the requirement in its use of the words "budget" and "actual." If he only presented a log/statements, then he didn't do any budgeting. The point is instilling financial responsibility--looking at his statement once a month and saying "gee, I'm out of money" or "golly, I've got $500" isn't budgeting.

I'd recommend a sketchbook from your local art supply store; that's what I use.

You stick a man in a uniform and suddenly he becomes a wellspring of regulations that no one else seems to ever have heard of.

Agreed. We haven't gone to summer camp in-council in decades. No one has ever been nasty about it, but it has come up a lot in the past few years. I simply reply that we do support the council: We go to camporees, and we go to winter camp, and we beat our FoS goal every year.

As a society we've gotten beyond the point that people can be sensible about nudity; yes, if you suggested that boys pair off you'd immediately be branded a pervert. Let them keep their modesty and risk Lyme Disease. As for yourself, this article contains some preventative measures on page 2: http://www.motherearthnews.com/natur...#axzz2Vsj8iKvg

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway. It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive. It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trouble Trevorum is a Unitarian on the national religious committee, so clearly that's not the issue. Wise's situation was unique to Wise as outlined in my reply to Rick at the top of this post. And take his wise lead on excusing myself from this flagellation party. I got the "empty response" error on this post, but I can see it, so I'm assuming you all can as well.

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway. It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive. It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trouble Trevorum is a Unitarian on the national religious committee, so clearly that's not the issue. Wise's situation was unique to Wise as outlined in my reply to Rick at the top of this post. And take his wise lead on excusing myself from this flagellation party.